KOROTHMKANDY KHALID Vs. SIRAJUDHEEN P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Rent Control Revision petitions (R.C.Rs. ) under Sec. 20 of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act) are filed by the petitioner-landlord against the common judgment dtd. 31/03/2014 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (RCAA), Thalassery, in R.C.A.No.159, 160, 161, 162, 165, 166, 167, 168, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189, 190, 191, 192 and 193/2010. Thirty five Rent Control Petitions (R.C.Ps.), namely, R.C.P.No.112, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128, 129, 131, 132, 133, 134, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 160, 161, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167 and 168/2006, were filed before the Rent Control Court (RCC), Thalassery, seeking eviction, mainly under Ss. 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act. In R.C.P.No.123, 124, 127, 132, 133, 161 and 166 of 2006, the ground under Sec. 11(4) (iv) of the Act was also taken up. In R.C.P.No.123, 127, 132, 133, 161 and 166 of 2006, the ground under Sec. 11(4)(v) of the Act was also taken up. By a common order dtd. 27/02/2010, all the R.C.Ps. were dismissed.

(2.) The tenanted premises in the R.C.Ps. are rooms in a single building by name, Jayasree complex. In the R.C.Ps. it is alleged that the petitioner, the owner of the building, bona fide requires the schedule rooms for his own occupation for running a modern restaurant cum supermarket. According to the petitioner, the entire building is an old and dilapidated one. Hence the entire complex needs to be reconstructed into a modern multi-storied building with necessary facilities so as to start his proposed business. He is presently conducting a business in Muscat, which he intends to wind-up, return and settle down in his native place. Therefore, after reconstruction he requires the building for his own need. Though the respondents have been requested to vacate the premises, they have refused to do so and hence the R.C.Ps.

(3.) The respondents-tenants denied the bona fide need as well as the need for reconstruction alleged in the petitions. According to them, the petitioner is in possession of several other buildings and vacant plots in the same city, which are quite suitable for the need alleged. The claim has been made with a mala fide intention to evict the respondents. The respondents- tenants also claim the benefit of the second proviso to Sec. 11(3).